Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-13-2009, 03:00 PM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2
DA* 16-50mm and 50-135mm

I'm thinking about getting these two because I've found what seems to be a deal (~US$620 for the 16-50, $800 for the 50-135), and was wondering if I should go for it.
I've currently got the 12-24, 43 limited, and the good ol' 18-55 kit lens.
My mount's a K10D (although I'll likely be getting a K-7 when it goes down in price a bit).
The 16-50 might technically be a little redundant, but I could go for a higher quality zoom than the kit lens.
I'm a little worried about SDM issues, as I've heard of a fair number of each of these lenses have them.
Any advice, comments, suggestions?
I'm leaning towards a "yes" here, particularly because I've got a trip to San Francisco in a couple weeks that I'd love to take one (or both) on, but I'm not wholly sure about either.

10-13-2009, 04:57 PM   #2
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
Hi and welcome to the forum.
This has been a very very often discussed issue with a plethora of lengthy threads giving examples of whose lenses have failed.

Put simply there are no guarantees of getting copies that will go the distance, given it's a relatively new technology for Pentax, and as a result I strongly advise getting extended warranties for all SDM lenses like these. A suggested test of its robustness would be using the lenses on a regular basis and for some time each time - if the SDM will fail, it will likely fail early on. Don't know the truth about this but it's not bad advice.

This, along with the fewer and fewer QC issues with regards to decentering and sub-par image quality, would be the only reservations I have with the lenses. I only have the 16-50 so far and with regular use for over 9 months now, it's been flawless.
10-13-2009, 06:07 PM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 173
With the crazy lens price inflation that has been going on recently, if you can get a good deal on a lens I'd go for it, especially if you're about to go on a trip.

Nothing sucks more than passing over a deal, then deciding later you want the lens only to find the cheapest price is 200 dollars more than what you could have bought it for. If you end up not liking the lenses, you can always turn around and sell them. IMO the amount of money you lose reselling a lens is worth the images you get while you have it. Also, the amount of money you lose to depreciation is usually far less than what it would cost to rent a lens for any significant period of time.

Considering your lack of anything on the tele end, the 50-135 seems like a no-brainer, unless you wind up needing more reach from something like the 55-300 or 60-250. I've had my 50-135 for a little under a year with no problems and, not being much of a telephoto guy myself, the relatively compact size and weight is great.

As for the 16-50, it would introduce a lot of redundancy into your setup, but if you still use your kit lens often I think it'd be worth it. The 16-50 gets a lot of flak because it isn't really quantitatively much better than the lens most people were looking to replace, the 16-45, but the main advantages of micro-contrast and color rendition can't really be measured in benchmarks.

In any case, as rainy as San Francisco is, I think the the weather sealing on both lenses will be really beneficial.
10-13-2009, 08:15 PM   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by Kirivon Quote
As for the 16-50, it would introduce a lot of redundancy into your setup, but if you still use your kit lens often I think it'd be worth it. The 16-50 gets a lot of flak because it isn't really quantitatively much better than the lens most people were looking to replace, the 16-45, but the main advantages of micro-contrast and color rendition can't really be measured in benchmarks.

In any case, as rainy as San Francisco is, I think the the weather sealing on both lenses will be really beneficial.
What redundancy... once he shoots with the 16-50, he will never pick up the kit lens ever again.

Otherwise, your comments are valid, the 16-50 is on my camera all of the time. But I love taking the 50-135 out since it's a 12 on a scale of 1-10.

Good point re: San Fran. Talk about dampness and mold.

10-13-2009, 08:46 PM   #5
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 173
QuoteOriginally posted by laissezfaire Quote
What redundancy... once he shoots with the 16-50, he will never pick up the kit lens ever again.
Perhaps "a lot of redundancy" was an overstatement. I was just referring to the overlap with the 12-24 and the 43.
10-13-2009, 09:45 PM   #6
Veteran Member
clawhammer's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Logan, Utah
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 975
It may seem like overlap with the 12-24 and the 16-50, but 12 is SO much wider than 16. I wouldn't consider the 12-24 and 16-50 redundant. The 18-55 won't be redundant so much as it will be pointless get the 16-50, and use your 18-55 for skeet shooting
10-14-2009, 03:50 AM   #7
Veteran Member
nulla's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 1,560
QuoteOriginally posted by burandon Quote
I'm thinking about getting these two because I've found what seems to be a deal (~US$620 for the 16-50, $800 for the 50-135), and was wondering if I should go for it.
I've currently got the 12-24, 43 limited, and the good ol' 18-55 kit lens.
My mount's a K10D (although I'll likely be getting a K-7 when it goes down in price a bit).
The 16-50 might technically be a little redundant, but I could go for a higher quality zoom than the kit lens.
I'm a little worried about SDM issues, as I've heard of a fair number of each of these lenses have them.
Any advice, comments, suggestions?
I'm leaning towards a "yes" here, particularly because I've got a trip to San Francisco in a couple weeks that I'd love to take one (or both) on, but I'm not wholly sure about either.
Both are stellar lenses.. the DA* 16-50 is on one of my cameras all the time.. easily the best zoom I have ever used.

Neil
10-14-2009, 07:50 AM   #8
Veteran Member
Pentax_XTC's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Duluth, GA
Posts: 365
Get Them While They're Cheap!

I have both and I can tell you that they are worth it. I have used both in the pouring rain with my K7 and all I have to do is wipe them off once I get indoors. The optical quality is excellent and the fact that they are contant f/2.8 in a zoom is great. I wondered about purchasing both myself, but I have no regrets.

10-14-2009, 10:16 AM   #9
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2
Original Poster
Thanks for the advice guys!
I think I'm gonna splurge and go for both!
It's been a while since I've bought a lens, and I think I'll be pretty happy not getting another for quite some time with these two Thanks again for the recommendations!
10-14-2009, 10:17 AM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 726
Burandon,

I have both DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 for almost a year now.
None of them has given me any issue so far.

The DA*16-50 is very versatile and my most used zoom because of the focal length and the rich color.
With DA*50-135, I think it's hard to go wrong with this lens. I own several great Pentax primes and I can say 50-135 is close to those primes in regards of IQ.
Amazing zoom indeed. The only drawback is it's kind of slow to autofocus. But once you get it focus, the result is just exceptional. I believe I'm not the only one who gives this compliment.

Before, I was like you, worrying with all of these SDM issue. I couldn't find a better weather sealed zoom than this in the other brands with these prices so I decided to take the plunge. Until now I haven't regret it a bit.

It's a great setup and very convenient.
I had used them both on the other time for a beach trip where my camera got soaked.
The weather sealing really saved my camera.
The coating on the front element seems to repel the water effectively also.

I couldn't find a better weather sealed combo besides these 2 lenses unless you need a longer reach to shoot sexy girls on the beach then you'll need the DA*60-250 or DA*200 or 300 .
In my case, a K-7 will perfect my weather sealed combo.
10-15-2009, 05:18 PM   #11
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by burandon Quote
Thanks for the advice guys!
I think I'm gonna splurge and go for both!
It's been a while since I've bought a lens, and I think I'll be pretty happy not getting another for quite some time with these two Thanks again for the recommendations!


You won't regret it. Also, one more thing I would like to mention... the quality of these lenses are top notch. They feel like real instruments, not plastic mount toy lenses from other brands that cost just as much
10-15-2009, 06:44 PM   #12
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
Enjoy them both mate. And use them often both to test them out as well as to justify your purchases!
10-16-2009, 07:44 AM   #13
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,563
You may want to consider the 60-250mm instead of the 50-150mm.
It is a constant f4 instead of f2.8, it is a little bigger, but you'll get an extra 100mm length.
Perhaps you should find yourself a Pentax retailer and try the 2 side by side, take the results home and evaluate.

- Bert
10-17-2009, 08:55 AM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Prince George, BC Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 644
QuoteOriginally posted by clawhammer Quote
It may seem like overlap with the 12-24 and the 16-50, but 12 is SO much wider than 16. I wouldn't consider the 12-24 and 16-50 redundant. The 18-55 won't be redundant so much as it will be pointless get the 16-50, and use your 18-55 for skeet shooting
I think if I owned the 12-24 it would be only used at the wide end. What I would really like is a DA*12mm f2.8 prime. That would round out my DA* kit very well.
10-17-2009, 03:49 PM   #15
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 235
I have both the 16-50 and the 50-135. I find that both lenses are capable of remarkable IQ, but the 16-50 requires a bit of effort whereas the 50-135 is pretty well Oggyproof.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
da* 16-50mm, k-mount, kit, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lenses F2 50mm, F4 75-150mm, F1.7 50mm, F4 200mm, F2.5 135mm, F4.5 80-2 hangu Sold Items 10 03-27-2010 07:51 PM
For Sale - Sold: Three Pentax SMC M-Series Lenses: 50mm/1.4, 50mm/1.7, 135mm/3.5! wallyb Sold Items 12 02-19-2010 01:24 PM
For Sale - Sold: K10D, K20D, Grips, AF-540FGZ, 50mm 1.4, 77mm 1.8, 12-24mm, 16-50mm, 50-135mm + qdoan Sold Items 29 01-13-2010 08:41 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: 3 x 50mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 40mm pancake, 135mm, 70-210mm, FAJ 28-80mm igowerf Sold Items 12 10-13-2007 08:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:34 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top